Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveWolfe & Rentschler Voir Dires
1,222 linesJUDGE CANNONE: You are unmuted. Thank you. We're back in session. You may be seated. Hi, Marin. For the record, before the court is Commonwealth versus Karen Read 22C117. The parties are present. The jury is not present. All right. Thank you. All right. So, we know that the Commonwealth has filed a few, anyway, or repeated motions trying to get the defense to comply with reciprocal discovery regarding the ARCCA witnesses. Previously, about a month or so ago, maybe longer, I found that there was a violation of the defendant's ``` violation of the defendant's obligations for reciprocal discovery, and I found that it was deliberate. The Commonwealth filed an additional motion, a motion to compel reciprocal discovery of the ARCCA witnesses or to exclude their testimony.
JUDGE CANNONE: Upon that, I believe I issued an order last week for certain discovery to be provided — and to be provided by ARCCA. On the day of opening statements, it was clear to me that there was another violation of the defendant's obligations under our rules of criminal procedure. And based on that, procedure. And based on that, especially given what the defense has failed to deliver, I would not permit the defense from mentioning ARCCA in their opening. So today, we're going to have an evidentiary hearing on your motion, Mr. Brennan. So I expect that we will get through both witnesses by the end of today. If not, we'll have to have them back, but I expect we can get through them. So, Mr. Brennan, who are we going with first?
MR. BRENNAN: Dr. Wolfe, please.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
COURT OFFICER: Dr. Wolfe. Once you're set, you're going to face the Once you're set, you're going to face the clerk and raise your right hand, please.
COURT CLERK: I solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Go right ahead, Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, doctor.
DR. WOLFE: Good afternoon.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you become aware there was an order from this court to produce records?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you receive a copy of that order?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Who did you receive a copy of that from?
JUDGE CANNONE: So, we need Dr. Wolfe to identify himself. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your last
DR. WOLFE: Daniel Wolfe. Last name spelled W-O-L-F-E.
MR. BRENNAN: Who did you receive that order from?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it was in an email forwarded from Miss Little.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you read it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you understand that there was a request for certain communications?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you understand that you were supposed to turn those records over to the Superior Court?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you turn records over to the Superior Court?
DR. WOLFE: I provided a copy of that production notice to Miss Little.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you provide the records to the Superior Court?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't directly email
MR. BRENNAN: Superior Court?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't directly email that to the court. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you indirectly email it to the court?
DR. WOLFE: It was my understanding that it would be passed along to the court.
MR. BRENNAN: So you did not pursuant to the order provide the records to the Superior Court, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Not directly to the court. No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you read the order, you understood what the order was requiring you to provide.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: It was requiring you to provide all text messages.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you provide all text messages?
DR. WOLFE: I don't have any in my possession.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you look for any text messages that are not in your possession about this case?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. your possession about this case? Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you find any?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: What did you do to look?
DR. WOLFE: So, I went through the phone that I presently have. And as I informed Miss Little last year, I was under T-Mobile — that was my carrier. Subsequent to that, I then switched to Verizon. I believe it was November. So, I made an effort to contact T-Mobile as well as get access to my T-Mobile account hub. Unfortunately, I was unable to get access to it or get any records from my T-Mobile carrier. Then I went through my Verizon records Then I went through my Verizon records that I have from 2025. That was — I could only go back 3 months and I provided those records.
MR. BRENNAN: How about emails? You didn't change email carriers, did you?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you provide all your emails from when you first were contacted by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And you provided every one of those emails to who?
DR. WOLFE: It would have been in the file that I put together for the production.
MR. BRENNAN: How many emails did you find between you and the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I'd have to look at the order, but it was probably — six to —
MR. BRENNAN: Are you —
DR. WOLFE: But it was probably six to— Are you talking about present day or just from last year?
MR. BRENNAN: Anytime.
DR. WOLFE: It was probably around a dozen or so.
MR. BRENNAN: Who did you correspond with by email on the defense?
DR. WOLFE: Again, can you specify a time frame?
MR. BRENNAN: At any time. Who did you correspond with by email on the defense?
DR. WOLFE: It would have been Mr. Jackson. Miss Little might have been on one of those emails. There might have been a couple other members. I don't remember off the top of my head.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, how about Miss Read?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe she was on any of those emails. You've never—
MR. BRENNAN: Was on any of those emails. You've never emailed or been on a correspondence with her by email?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And how about Mr. Yannetti?
DR. WOLFE: He may have been on one of the emails. I don't know.
MR. BRENNAN: As I sit here today, you communicated by phone with the defense, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that began as far back as March 2024?
DR. WOLFE: After our report was issued. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: In March. Back in March of 2024, you spoke on the phone to Mr. Jackson.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: A number of times?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And as you spoke, you began to become familiar with him and his role in this case, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: We corresponded about again our expected testimony here at trial. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: I'll ask it again. Did you become familiar with him and his role in this case when you spoke to him?
DR. WOLFE: I understood him to be the defense attorney on the case. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you speak to Miss Little by phone?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you speak to anybody?
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on one second, please. Thank you.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you speak — pardon me, did you speak to anybody other than Mr. Jackson about this case before the first trial?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Could you speak to anybody since then on the defense team?
DR. WOLFE: Who? I believe Miss Little and Mr. Alessi.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And how about Miss Read?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever have any conversations that weren't on a regular telephone? You have a Zoom?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, we have had — I believe it was a Zoom or a Teams meeting. We've had a couple.
MR. BRENNAN: When was that?
DR. WOLFE: That would have been more recently to go over some of the testing that we've done.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever have any Zoom meetings before the first trial?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever have any group conferences before the first trial?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Were you ever on the phone before the first trial in a conversation where you and Dr. Rentschler both were on the call?
DR. WOLFE: There may have been an instance of that. I just don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, think back.
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: At some point, you were contacted by Mr. Jackson and you decided — or you learned — that you may be part of this case as a witness.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: When you learned you were part of this case, did you have contact with Mr. Jackson before you testified at the voir dire?
DR. WOLFE: Did I have communications with him? Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. And in those communications, you spoke about your role.
DR. WOLFE: I think we spoke about logistics and coordinating my arrival here for the voir dire and certainly the trial.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you spoke on March 20th, 2024, didn't you talk about more than coordination of logistics?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, what was the date?
MR. BRENNAN: March 20th, 2024.
DR. WOLFE: So I believe that would have been the very first phone call that I had with Mr. Jackson.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. Was that more than about logistics?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think we were trying to figure out what should we do. I will note that this was a very abnormal situation for me, being involved in a federal investigation and then ultimately being called as a witness.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I'm trying to get you to answer my question, but you're not. Did you talk
JUDGE CANNONE: So, are you finished with your answer, Dr. Wolfe, or are you still answering?
DR. WOLFE: I was still trying to answer.
JUDGE CANNONE: Go ahead. Finish.
DR. WOLFE: Thank you. So, as I mentioned, the situation was abnormal. I didn't know if we could get involved. I didn't think Mr. Jackson knew we could get involved in terms of a path forward. Would we be able to do more work? Could we review additional material? How could we work together moving forward? There was a lot of unknown. There was a lot of uncertainty.
MR. BRENNAN: You done?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you talk about more than just logistics?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you talk about fees or structures?
DR. WOLFE: I described to him our typical procedure when we intake a criminal defense case, right? There's typically a contract and retainer associated with that. So I described our normal procedure that takes place.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. So you talked about fees and scheduling and costs — what you charge.
DR. WOLFE: I did talk about
MR. BRENNAN: The contract and the retention letter.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you talked about that contract, it was a discussion about them hiring you, paying you, or retaining you potentially?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I prescribed our standard procedure.
MR. BRENNAN: Why was it you were talking about fees and schedules if you didn't think that you were potentially going to get hired?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I prescribed our normal operating procedure. I had no idea how it was going to work moving forward, which is why, ultimately, immediately after that phone call, I contacted the Department of Justice to get clarification on that.
MR. BRENNAN: We'll get to that, but I'm asking you specifically — why were you talking about fees and scheduling and being paid at that point?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
DR. WOLFE: Again, because Mr. Jackson was interested, I believe, in calling us to testify at trial. So I explained our normal process when a client reaches out and wants to engage us for trial testimony. That's typically the procedure that we prescribe at ARCCA. So that's why I had that explanation to him.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you were talking to him about details about potentially being hired. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know about being hired. I think — him utilizing us in the trial as expert witnesses.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, what's the difference between him utilizing you and paying you for that utilization and him actually hiring you? What's the difference in your mind?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think there is a difference because ultimately after I got clarification from the Department of Justice, they indicated that the defense could not sign any type of contract. There could not be any type of agreement or retainer.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm not asking what you determined later. I'm talking about the conversation you had on March 20th, 2022 when you were speaking to Attorney Jackson. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Understand?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that I understand your question then.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you had a conversation on March 20th, 2022 with Attorney Jackson, you discussed potentially being hired, paid, compensated by Attorney Jackson or the defense for this case, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: We did — like I said, I did explain to him our typical operating procedure when a client reaches out for trial testimony. I went over that with him. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Not talking about a client. I'm talking about this client. Did you talk about them potentially hiring or retaining you for work in this case? That's the question I'm asking you. On March 20th, 2022 — not the 22nd, not the 24th — March 20th, 2024. Did you speak to Attorney Jackson about them potentially retaining or hiring you for this case?
DR. WOLFE: I spoke to him like I speak to any other client that would be interested in calling us as a witness.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And so after you spoke to them, you spoke to representatives of the United States Attorney's Office and you wrote an email back saying that you were going to put the conversation on hold. Is that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Until I got clarification from them.
MR. BRENNAN: And at some point it was on hold, right? At some point it resumed.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When was that?
DR. WOLFE: That would have been towards — I believe the end of April.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. The end of April. How was this relationship resumed? What was the contact, the conversation between you and anybody on the defense that resumed that relationship?
DR. WOLFE: I think that I reached out to Mr. Jackson. Like I said, I think it looks like about a month had passed and I had let him know that I had spoken to the DOJ and got clarification on moving forward.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So, in April of 2024, you reached out to the defense and said that you had permission or a green light to move forward in the relationship with the defense in this case.
DR. WOLFE: I had clarification from the Department of Justice. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And that clarification allowed you then to work with the defense on this case.
DR. WOLFE: Not work with — we could be called on the defense's behalf to testify. And for that matter, the Commonwealth could have also contacted us and utilized us at trial as well if they should please.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when did you become an advocate for the defense? Interesting. Do you feel like you're an advocate for the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Are you sure about that, sir?
DR. WOLFE: I'm on the science and the analysis that I've done. That's the side that I'm on.
MR. BRENNAN: You sure are. Because after that April 24th call, letting them know that the United States Attorney's Office gave permission for you to be called as a witness, you called them again that day, didn't you? Or they called you on the main line.
DR. WOLFE: We may have exchanged a couple calls that day. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you did exchange a couple calls that day because we have at least some records. And when you called later that day after telling them that you had permission — they could use you as witnesses — what did you talk about?
DR. WOLFE: You have the records that I could take a look at just so I could see what you're referring to.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember having calls after you called Attorney Jackson and said you had the green light from the US Attorney's Office? Do you remember having further calls that day?
DR. WOLFE: I think we had a couple brief conversations. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you think about it, do you remember them, or are you just saying you think but you don't know?
DR. WOLFE: I don't remember. I remember that there was one conversation I believe in early May that I had with Mr. Jackson in which we engaged in a conversation where I gave him more information about my background, who ARCCA was as a whole. I think we even got to talk a little bit about my family, my four kids, and things of that nature. But it was a call about background and qualifications.
MR. BRENNAN: We're still back in April. You're moving ahead to May when you first started billing. I want to talk about back in April. Do you remember having conversations on April 24th with Mr. Jackson? Do you remember that?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow that.
DR. WOLFE: I remember that there were conversations. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Specifically what they were, too?
DR. WOLFE: I remember — I think they were brief, but I don't remember the specifics of them. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, in the brief conversation, what do you briefly remember about that brief conversation, doctor?
DR. WOLFE: Well, as I mentioned, I had finally received clarification from the DOJ. So I think I was letting him know that I had received that clarification.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, sir, you said that that was the first call. There were more than one call — there were then two calls to the mainline. What did you discuss with him during those calls?
DR. WOLFE: Well, to be honest with you, the call to the ARCCA mainline — I don't even know if I spoke with him. That's just to the mainline, not to me directly. So he could have spoken to a receptionist who then tried to get a hold of me, right? So I don't know if that specific call to the mainline was to me or someone else at ARCCA.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, this is a new relationship, right? You're working on a contract with the federal government. You have only spoken to Mr. Jackson, according to you, twice. Don't you remember the early conversations with them and what they were about?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry. Are we talking about now at the end of April still?
MR. BRENNAN: I'm still talking about April. April 24th, 2024.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. As I just discussed with you, from what I recall, it was relaying to him the clarification that I got from the Department of Justice.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. But that doesn't take more than one call, does it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know. He may have been in court. There might have been some phone tag. I don't know, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, there was a 9-minute call on April 24th, and then there's two calls to the ARCCA mainline — 3 minutes and 2 minutes. Do you remember any of those calls?
DR. WOLFE: Again, when you say 3 minutes and 2 minutes, that makes it sound like in all likelihood he contacted the ARCCA mainline, got a hold of a receptionist or my project manager and couldn't get a hold of me.
MR. BRENNAN: Are you just making that up, or is that what happened?
DR. WOLFE: Sir, that is my best guess. I don't recall from a year ago.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm not asking you to guess. I'm asking for your testimony.
DR. WOLFE: That's what I recall, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you recall him calling a secretary on the mainline? That's what you recall?
DR. WOLFE: He very well could have. I just don't know, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: But you're making a representation that you recall him using a secretary on the mainline. I'm asking what you actually did and actually said. Do you remember speaking to Mr. Jackson — or anybody on the defense team — after that initial call back on April 24th, 2024? Do you remember those two phone calls?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Let's get an answer.
DR. WOLFE: I don't remember those phone calls specifically. No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Next question. Do you remember the phone call on April 30th, 2024? Do you remember that one?
DR. WOLFE: I don't remember that call, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you remember the call on May 1st, 2024?
DR. WOLFE: I don't have the records in front of me, but was that a longer call by any chance?
MR. BRENNAN: It was. It was 40 minutes long.
DR. WOLFE: Okay. Yep. So then, yes, as I just described earlier, that would have been the call in which I went over with Mr. Jackson a little bit more about ARCCA, my background, my education, qualifications, the kind of case work that I do, things of that nature.
MR. BRENNAN: And did you discuss issues regarding this case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So, during the 40 minutes you spoke, you never discussed any of your findings that had already been made?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You had never discussed any of your testing in this case during that 40-minute conversation?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir. And it was all laid out in the report that was issued in February. Kline's report.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking you, did you have any conversations about it with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So, in that 40-minute conversation, you talked about your family, your pastimes, ARCCA — but never ever talked about this case.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You billed for that time, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I believe that I kept track of that time. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you kept track of the time, did you submit that time and ultimately get money for that time?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I routinely keep track of my time when I'm working on a project. So, yes, that time was kept track of.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not what I'm asking you. Ultimately, that time that you kept track of — did you then submit it and get paid and compensated for that time? That's what I'm asking you.
DR. WOLFE: Well, first off, I'm a salaried employee, so I don't get direct compensation when an invoice goes out. That invoice when it's sent ultimately comes back to ARCCA. That doesn't come back to Dan Wolfe.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So, in order to get paid for that, you would have had to submit that time through ARCCA to then forward it, wouldn't you?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Going to allow it. Is that true?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes. I keep track of my time so that my boss knows what I'm doing. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Can we approach, please?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes. Come on over. Doctor, again to focus you, we're on May 1st, 2024.
MR. BRENNAN: May 1st, 2024, you had a conversation with Attorney Jackson, correct? And at some point, did you submit the time you spent and forward it so that that could be billed?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And I will note that all of that time was actually tracked under the same project number that the work that was done for the Department of Justice was under.
MR. BRENNAN: So at the time you had that conversation, you were keeping track of hours, correct?
DR. WOLFE: Something I routinely do. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And do you know who ultimately paid that bill for that day? May 1st, 2024.
DR. WOLFE: I know now that it was the defense. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Now, when you billed, did you bill for the entire conversation?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know.
MR. BRENNAN: You said most of the conversation was background — talking about ARCCA, talking about your families. Right. Do you typically bill clients when you're spending time talking about families?
DR. WOLFE: Again, that wasn't the entirety of the conversation. I think you just briefly asked me about my family.
MR. BRENNAN: Oh, now it's brief. Okay. All right.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: No comments, please.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you typically charge when you're talking about nonrelated work matters in your billing?
DR. WOLFE: Sir, I think the majority of that phone call was related to work-related topics.
MR. BRENNAN: Work-related. It took that much time to talk about ARCCA and your background, certainly.
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: And how much was the majority?
DR. WOLFE: Sir, I don't know that I can parse it out in individual segments or minutes for you.
MR. BRENNAN: And so after that May 1st conversation, did you communicate with the defense before June 9th, 2024?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. I think from what I recall next up was I think the voir dire — either Alan, I think Alan contacted me letting me know that the court wanted to do a voir dire of myself and Dr. Rentschler.
MR. BRENNAN: And you mean Alan? You mean attorney Jackson?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you became friendly — first-name basis. Is that what you're referring to?
DR. WOLFE: No, I'm saying—
MR. BRENNAN: Did you become friendly?
DR. WOLFE: I wouldn't say that we were friends.
MR. BRENNAN: I didn't ask you "friends." I said did you become friendly?
DR. WOLFE: I talk to him like I talk to all of the attorneys that I work with, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: What would you call me if you were going to address me?
DR. WOLFE: Probably Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: So, do you remember the next time you spoke to Alan?
DR. WOLFE: As I mentioned, it probably would have been sometime in early or mid-June.
MR. BRENNAN: Going into June, you were keeping track of all your communications with Attorney Jackson or anybody from the defense, weren't you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know — what do you mean by keeping track?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, do you have a folder where you make notes when you have communications with an attorney and discuss issues?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't make notes?
DR. WOLFE: Not for brief phone calls. No.
MR. BRENNAN: For your billing, do you save phone records or text messages so you have some collateral evidence about the billing?
DR. WOLFE: No. Not when it's things about logistics and traveling and scheduling. No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And by the way, when you put together your phone records and text messages that you sent to the court in response to the court order, did you have actual records?
DR. WOLFE: What do you mean in terms of actual records?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I see like a summary chart that was developed. Who developed that summary chart?
DR. WOLFE: So, as I mentioned earlier, I was unfortunately unable to pull anything from T-Mobile. I just could not get access. Then what I did is I logged into my personal Verizon phone records and I was able to go back for three months. I couldn't get back to December, but I pulled — I downloaded the spreadsheets and I extracted those rows and provided that.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you provide the actual records or just the spreadsheet?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I provided the spreadsheet which was pulled from the records. I would have had to redact a lot of phone numbers if I was to put in the full extraction, if you will.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you didn't provide the full extraction?
DR. WOLFE: I provided the full extraction as it relates to all the contact between myself and Mr. Jackson and Miss Little.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever delete texts from last year?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: After you had text messages with the defense, did you delete those texts?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. After the trial concluded — I mean, that's something I routinely do. I'm not going to keep texts from Mr. Jackson, especially now that we're past a year. I would have no reason to keep those, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm not asking for the excuse. I'm asking if you did it. Did you delete texts?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it's something that I typically do. I communicate with attorneys all the time, whether it's for trial or inspections. I don't have a habit of keeping a text chain about scheduling or meeting or "hey, can we meet at this time" or "show up here." I just don't have a habit of keeping that type of text. He's not my friend, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you didn't delete texts.
DR. WOLFE: I think I just told you that yes, I did delete the texts.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't tell me, but you just did now. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question. No comments, Mr. Brennan.
MR. BRENNAN: How many texts did you delete in communications with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know the number, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't know the number?
DR. WOLFE: I don't have the texts. So you're asking me about texts from over a year ago. I don't recall how many there were.
MR. BRENNAN: All right. Was there 10? 100? 1,000? How many were there?
DR. WOLFE: Of ones that I sent?
MR. BRENNAN: No, not just what you sent. Either way — back and forth.
DR. WOLFE: Probably — I don't know, maybe around 100 or so.
MR. BRENNAN: And when did you delete those over 100 texts between you and the defense?
DR. WOLFE: As I mentioned, I think the last text that I remember was Mr. Jackson texting me just thanking me for my time coming up here after the trial. Again, that was at the end of June. And then I didn't hear from him, and at some point — I don't know specifically when it would have been last year — but I deleted those texts. There was no reason for me to keep those.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, do you remember about when you made the affirmative intentional effort to delete around 100 text messages between you and the defense?
DR. WOLFE: It would have been sometime after the trial, probably before I got my new phone in November, but it would have been probably in the month or two after the trial.
MR. BRENNAN: So where were you when you were deleting these texts? Were you at your office? At home? Do you remember sitting down and deciding intentionally you were going to delete over 100 texts? Where did that decision happen?
DR. WOLFE: I have no idea.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, you can't remember deleting over 100 texts — where you were.
DR. WOLFE: I just said I delete texts routinely. You're asking me to specifically give you a location and a time when I deleted those? I don't recall that.
MR. BRENNAN: You said it was after the trial.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And out of the 100 texts or so, who were you texting on the defense team?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it would have just been Mr. Jackson on that.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever communicate by any other means — like Signal or an application — during the time of the trial? Anytime?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: With the defense?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Is it typical for a biomechanical engineer to use an application like Signal to talk to an attorney on a case?
DR. WOLFE: Sure.
MR. BRENNAN: You know the benefit of Signal, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: I mean, it's a messaging platform.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Encrypted app, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: What's that? Encrypted? I don't know, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: It keeps no record of the communication when you use an application like Signal, does it?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you used it. Did you have it on your phone — — using it with other people?
DR. WOLFE: No. I don't believe so.
MR. BRENNAN: So the only time that you used Signal in your career is when you were dealing with this defense team?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. It was earlier this year. Mr. Jackson had communicated with me indicating that it was his preferred method of communication. So yes, we did exchange some messages on Signal, but this was at no point in time during the first trial using the Signal app.
MR. BRENNAN: Was that your suggestion?
DR. WOLFE: No. Again, I think it was Mr. Jackson that said it was his preferred method.
MR. BRENNAN: Is that standard in your industry to use Signal when you're talking to clients?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know that there's a standard out there, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking about your standard. Is it your standard to use an encrypted app when you're talking to attorneys?
DR. WOLFE: If the client has that preference, I don't have a problem with it.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, how many times have you done it other than with this defense team?
DR. WOLFE: Again, as I just mentioned, it was the first time.
MR. BRENNAN: How many conversations did you think you had with the defense team by Signal?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it would have been just Mr. Jackson, and like I said, it was really — I think — just in the month of March of this year, but it was brief. I know that we — I think we exchanged a couple phone calls, and I remember the call quality was terrible. So we really didn't use it that much.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You're saying a lot of things. You're saying "you think." I want to know your best memory. I don't want you to think. If you don't know, you don't know. How many times did you use Signal with the defense to talk about this case?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Going to allow it.
DR. WOLFE: From what I recall, it was probably a handful of times.
MR. BRENNAN: When you say "from what I recall," are you purposely being vague in case there are records, or do you not remember?
DR. WOLFE: I don't remember, sir. As you mentioned, it doesn't keep a log of it. So I just don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you don't have to rely on a log. You can rely on your actual memory.
DR. WOLFE: Right. I'm just telling you that I didn't keep track of it. So I don't know the specific number.
MR. BRENNAN: How many times do you think you talked by Signal?
DR. WOLFE: As I just mentioned, I think it was a handful of times.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't know what a handful means.
DR. WOLFE: Probably four to five.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, was it four or was it five?
DR. WOLFE: It was probably four to five. That's the best estimate I can give you.
MR. BRENNAN: How long were the conversations on Signal? The four to five times?
DR. WOLFE: I think they were pretty brief. I'd say probably around 5 minutes or so.
MR. BRENNAN: You think each one was 5 minutes?
DR. WOLFE: Probably 5 minutes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Were you putting it on a timer? Each one had to be a maximum of 5 minutes?
DR. WOLFE: No, I'm just giving you my best estimate, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: How certain are you that the Signal calls were four to five minutes?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I just told you I'm providing my best estimate.
MR. BRENNAN: How confident are you the times are between four and 5 minutes?
DR. WOLFE: That's the best answer I can give you, sir. I'm giving you my best estimate.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking you how confident you are.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your Honor.
MR. BRENNAN: Can you answer that? How confident are you, Dr. Wolfe?
DR. WOLFE: I can't answer that anymore.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you were required by court order to provide all of the records to your Honor, you knew that one of the important things you needed to respond to were communications between you and the defense for her Honor to consider, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And Signal is a communication, isn't it?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly.
MR. BRENNAN: You looked at all your records and listed the text messages and the phone calls. You knew that, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. You knew that was going to be a representation that you were making to the court about your communications with the defense. You understood that, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And you wouldn't want to mislead the court, would you?
DR. WOLFE: No. Which is why I told you. I asked.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't put anywhere in your response to the court order that there were communications beyond text messages and phone calls. You never ever alerted the court or anybody to that, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, because I have no record of it. I have no way of being able to tell when those took place or how many there were.
MR. BRENNAN: The question I asked you is: when you responded to the court order to provide all communications — all communications — and you responded by offering text messages and you responded by listing phone calls, you knew that your Signal calls were communications, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I provided everything that I had in my possession, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not what I'm asking you. You knew the Signal calls were communications, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And you never informed — in your response — that there were phone calls through Signal as part of your communications, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, because I had no record — like I do with the Verizon entries as well as the emails. I could not — there's nothing I had in my possession, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You've read this court order, haven't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you understand when the court was looking for all communications, it meant all communications?
DR. WOLFE: And I've provided everything that I have in my possession.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, during those four to five Signal communications, did any of these occur before the end of the last trial?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
MR. BRENNAN: Did any of these Signal communications happen before the end of the last trial?
DR. WOLFE: No. Like I said, they were all this year.
MR. BRENNAN: You sure about that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, at some point, did the defense send you a retainer agreement for this year?
DR. WOLFE: Nope.
MR. BRENNAN: Prior to the end of the last trial, did you ever get a retainer agreement?
DR. WOLFE: No, there was no contract or retainer for the first trial. There wasn't a contract.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever receive a retainer agreement?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't believe so.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. When you came out for the last trial, did you have an agreement with any entity that was going to pay for your costs?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So you had no agreement that you were going to be refunded or compensated for your costs?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you have any agreement that you were going to be compensated for your time?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you were asked to come out and testify in this case, tell me — did you think that the defense was going to compensate you for the cost of you coming out here?
DR. WOLFE: I had no idea who was ultimately going to pay the invoice, if an invoice was even sent.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you think that you were coming out here to testify for free?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I don't know who was going to pay the bill.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not what I'm asking you. I want to know — after having these conversations with the defense and they asked you to come out here — did you expect to be compensated for your time?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I'm a salaried employee, so it doesn't matter to me. I'm sure my boss would like us to get paid, but no, I did not know ultimately who would pay an invoice if an invoice was sent after the trial.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you were keeping track of your billing, weren't you?
DR. WOLFE: I was keeping track of my time. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you kept track of your costs, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: The company does that. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I enter my time so that the company can keep track of my time. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When you came out here and made travel arrangements, did you have any conversations with anybody from the defense?
DR. WOLFE: About the travel arrangements?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And as far as the travel arrangements, who on the defense was trying to help you with travel arrangements?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it was Mr. Jackson.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Were there other people — associates, colleagues — that were helping you as well?
DR. WOLFE: None that I had direct communication with. I don't know if he communicated with others after that.
MR. BRENNAN: Was there a person named Cat? You ever hear that name before?
DR. WOLFE: I believe that — yeah, she may have escorted me into the courtroom. I think —
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you don't believe because that's a pretty particular name. So, when you use words like "you believe" — you know, you know. So, did you meet a person by the name of Cat?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
DR. WOLFE: I think when I arrived here, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Without qualification, the simple question is — you've met Cat, haven't you?
DR. WOLFE: I think I met her. It was either at the voir dire day or the trial day.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, does Cat work for the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I have no idea who she is.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, how did you know who she was? How was the introduction? How did that go down?
DR. WOLFE: I just mentioned I think she escorted me here to the courtroom.
MR. BRENNAN: Escorted you from where?
DR. WOLFE: I think I arrived — I drove here and I arrived — I believe in the church parking lot across the street, and I think she walked me over, and then ultimately when I was done I think she walked me back to the lot.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you have conversations with anybody from the defense about how you'd get here and why it is in particular you would park at the church parking lot?
DR. WOLFE: Because I had no idea where to go.
MR. BRENNAN: But who told you where to go?
DR. WOLFE: Like I mentioned, I communicated with Mr. Jackson, who provided that information to me.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And did you have any significance about the church parking lot? Did that mean anything to you?
DR. WOLFE: No, he had just indicated, I think, that they had reserved it and it was a spot that I could park my vehicle.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And when you got there, did you meet with anybody from the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I can't recall if they were standing out there and we walked in together. I don't recall.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I'm asking if you've met them, not whether you walked in together. I'll ask it again. When you arrived, after these plans were made, did you meet with the defense before you came into court on the voir dire day?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe — I can't recall if the defense was out there. I think on the day of trial, I think I met Mr. Jackson and maybe a couple other members of the defense team.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you say you think — this was a pretty remarkable event, coming to this trial, wasn't it?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. BRENNAN: Pretty remarkable event, this trial, wasn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It's unique. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yeah. It's unique. And so when you came here, having had all these conversations with Attorney Jackson, you don't remember if you met him before you came in for voir dire or came in for trial. You don't remember if you met him?
DR. WOLFE: Well, like I said, I think for the voir dire, I think he was already — I believe in the courthouse. So I think the first time I actually shook his hand and met him was the day of the trial, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And tell me, is that near the church parking lot that you met with them?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry. What was your question?
MR. BRENNAN: Was it near the church parking lot where you met with them?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. He shook his hand. This is meeting face to face, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you have a conversation about the case?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you say you don't believe so, do you think you had a conversation about the case at that point in time?
DR. WOLFE: No. I was getting ready to take the stand, so I don't think we had a conversation about it.
MR. BRENNAN: You were speaking to the defense — or Attorney Jackson — on June 10th, 2024. That was before your testimony, correct?
DR. WOLFE: I believe so. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And do you remember what those conversations were about?
DR. WOLFE: I presume it was about the logistics of when we were needed, and then I know that ultimately I served as kind of the primary point of contact, where I think Alan would reach out to me. He would give me some information about the scheduling and kind of when we would be needed. Then I would check in with Dr. Rentschler and then I would get back to Mr. Jackson. So there was kind of that channel of communication to try to figure out when we were to arrive and where we were supposed to go.
MR. BRENNAN: You're not saying that all your conversations with Alan were just logistics, were you?
DR. WOLFE: I believe for the most part, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So it took hundreds of texts — 100 texts — for logistics?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. And I can certainly go into the day before my trial testimony, which was a very extensive travel day where I don't even think I left the Philadelphia airport. We're going to get there, but we're going to get there, but there's a lot more communications before we get even close to that.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you remember on June 10th having conversations with Attorney Jackson?
DR. WOLFE: I do remember that there were conversations. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Now, June 10th is 8 days before your testimony. Did you ever talk about an outline of your testimony or what your testimony would be?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You ultimately had more conversations on June 16th. You remember those conversations on June 16th?
DR. WOLFE: Not specifically.
MR. BRENNAN: No, you don't remember them specifically. Do you remember whether or not you talked about the case with Attorney Jackson on June 16th?
DR. WOLFE: We did not talk about the case. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever email with Attorney Jackson around that time? In June — June 10th, before your voir dire?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So everything from your mind was just logistics at that point?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And then you came in for June 17th —
DR. WOLFE: I believe the voir dire was the 18th.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you remember having phone calls on the 18th with Attorney Jackson? The day of the voir dire?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I could have — to let them know that I arrived.
MR. BRENNAN: So you check in with a client, tell them you're on your way, even though you're not going to meet them?
DR. WOLFE: To let them know that I'm coming to court.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And so when you testified in the voir dire, did you have further conversations with Attorney Jackson after the voir dire?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And did you talk about the case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: You came and you testified on the 24th. That sounds right. You had a number of phone calls before the 24th. You had a series of phone calls on the 17th, two on the 18th, two on the 19th. Do you know what any of those were about?
DR. WOLFE: I think it was about the logistics of arriving here, because I know that I was going to — as opposed to driving — I know I was going to fly in this time.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. How about the 21st and 23rd? There's a call on the 21st and two on the 23rd. Did you talk about the case?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: And so when you came into trial to testify, you were just relying on the opinions you had already provided in the past that were written in the February 12th report of 2024.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you had not talked about the case with Attorney Jackson or any member of this team?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir. It was all in the report, and that's ultimately what I testified to at the time of trial, at the voir dire, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And you did not talk to Attorney Jackson or anybody else about the case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: May approach.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Showing you an email. Do you recognize that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: From you to who?
DR. WOLFE: To Mr. Jackson.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And what's it labeled as?
DR. WOLFE: Wolfe Direct.
MR. BRENNAN: And that's before you testified at trial, before the court. It's at 6:00 p.m. the night before you testified. Yes. So it's before you testified.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Let me show you this document. Do you recognize that one?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: What's that?
DR. WOLFE: That is the attachment to the email.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you recognize reading that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you recognize discussing the case before you testified on June 24th, 2024?
DR. WOLFE: I never discussed this with him. This is something that I sent to him that I did on my own and that I sent to him. But he never asked this of me and we never discussed it.
MR. BRENNAN: So you sent him what you thought would be the best questions and answers for him to ask you when you testify.
DR. WOLFE: So this is something I routinely do when I work with attorneys. I prepare this on my own to prep myself and prepare for trial.
MR. BRENNAN: Tendering. There's an email with a document. I'd like to attach this as an exhibit.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. Exhibit one.
COURT CLERK: One.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you assisted the defense before your testimony. Hold on. Where's the one with the confidence interval on? Thank you. So, you assisted the defense in anticipation of your testimony by sharing with them the questions and answers you thought would be most helpful.
DR. WOLFE: Again, as I mentioned, this is something that I do internally to prepare. I sent that to him the evening before I testified at 6 p.m. I presume that he already had his direct examination done at that point. So I sent that to him. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: That's a lot of answers other than the one for my question.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold the comments, please.
MR. BRENNAN: My question was — you had communications offering information to the defense before you testified in a way that you thought would help the testimony, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Well, first off, I have no idea if he even read it or utilized anything from it.
MR. BRENNAN: But that's not really answering the question I just asked, is it?
DR. WOLFE: Can you repeat the question?
MR. BRENNAN: Of course I can. So, when you sent a direct examination to Attorney Jackson before your testimony, you communicated with Attorney Jackson providing information that you thought would best help your testimony in court?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think ultimately it's to help the jury understand my report and my analysis.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you think it's helpful not answering the question and just diverting every time I ask you something? Do you think that's helpful? Do you want to answer my question or do you want me to move on?
DR. WOLFE: I think I answered your question.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't think you did. So I'll ask it one more time.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. No comments, please.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you think that providing a direct examination to the defense before you testified is in any way assisting in preparing for your testimony?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I don't know if he even utilized it, sir. And certainly, if the Commonwealth had reached out, they could have gotten a copy of that as well. It would have been the same exact outline whether I testified on behalf of the defense or behalf of the Commonwealth.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't want to answer my question.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever make any comments or discuss the outline that you provided to the defense to help better the testimony for the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I did put comments. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: When I just showed you that document and you said you just sent it because this is a standard thing — why didn't you just tell us that you made comments that would assist the defense? Why didn't you share that when I just asked the question?
DR. WOLFE: I don't understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: You don't understand my question. I asked you about the outline, the direct examination you provided to the defense, and you gave me a response that this is something typical, but it's just an outline. You wouldn't answer whether it would help the defense or not. But the reality is you weren't assisting the defense, isn't it?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow that.
MR. BRENNAN: You were making suggestions to help the defense, weren't you, sir?
DR. WOLFE: It wasn't to help the defense. It wasn't to help anyone but the jury understand things. As I just mentioned, that outline, if I had sent one to the Commonwealth, you would have gotten the exact same copy.
MR. BRENNAN: You didn't send one to the Commonwealth.
DR. WOLFE: The Commonwealth never reached out to us, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So, what you said in this is there was a question about — so, not being able to inspect the vehicle is something that is not uncommon in your line of work, and you wrote back "absolutely not." Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And you made a comment — to assist the jury, according to you, only to assist the jury: "Not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination. I have a feeling they're going to argue I didn't personally inspect the vehicles. I had enough information from the material I reviewed, so it wasn't necessary. Need to show jury it doesn't matter in this case." Were those your comments to the defense before your testimony?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. And it would have been the same argument probably from the defense if you had called me as a witness about not being able to inspect the vehicle. I wanted the jury to understand that for the analysis I undertook, it did not matter that I did not physically inspect the vehicle, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: So when you're telling us here under oath before this court that you did nothing to assist the defense, you do not think that you making these suggestions on how to better the testimony for the defense — you don't think that's helping the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You said "not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination." So you're making suggestions to the defense about what you think could be helpful in the direct examination.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Sir, there were never any conversations between me and Mr. Jackson about what questions to ask, what not to ask. Again, I prepared that internally on my behalf and sent that to him. Whether he utilized it or not, I have no idea.
MR. BRENNAN: Not my question. Not my question. What I'm asking you is when you wrote to the defense and said, "Not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination" — yes. Slow down. Sorry. When you wrote and offered unsolicited, according to you, to the defense, "Not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination" — weren't you trying to help, sir?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe so. No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And then when you wrote, "I have a feeling they are going to argue I didn't personally inspect the vehicles" — who's "they"?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it would have been the prosecution in this case.
MR. BRENNAN: But you're not taking sides. You're totally objective, right, sir?
DR. WOLFE: That is a question that's routinely raised when I testify about whether or not we inspected the vehicle. So I know it would be a potential issue that would be raised by either side.
MR. BRENNAN: So you were alerting the defense that you thought that this may become an issue, weren't you?
DR. WOLFE: It was more or less to make sure the jury had an understanding that because I didn't physically inspect the vehicle, it did not matter for my analysis. I wanted to make sure the jury understood that.
MR. BRENNAN: Don't hide behind the jury. I'm talking about your communications with the defense. I'm asking you specifically about your conversations with the defense.
JUDGE CANNONE: That's two questions. Ask one question.
MR. BRENNAN: You wrote, "I have a feeling they are going to argue I didn't personally inspect the vehicles." That's what you wrote, correct?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor. The tone and the argumentation.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you write that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Right. And when
MR. BRENNAN: You said "they," you're referring to the opposition, the Commonwealth. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. And you offer an explanation or a way to deal with what the Commonwealth may confront you with, don't you? You make a suggestion to help the defense, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it was to help the jury understand that because I did not physically inspect the vehicle, it did not matter for my analysis. That was the point I was trying to make. I had enough information from the material I reviewed, so it wasn't necessary. "Need to show the jury it doesn't matter in this case." That's what I wrote.
MR. BRENNAN: That's what you wrote, right? "Need to show the jury." That's what I was trying to make
DR. WOLFE: Sure — that that point was understood to the jury.
MR. BRENNAN: In your collaboration with the defense. That's not all you wrote, is it? You gave them discretion about things that you should or shouldn't say in front of that jury who you say you want to hear everything, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: There were other comments. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: If you want the jury to hear everything, you wouldn't be relying on the defense to tell you what to say and not say, would you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know if I understand your question.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You'll understand if I read this — number 19. "Would it be fair to say that because you do a lot of nighttime visibility work, your cases frequently involve pedestrians?" You remember that one?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you wrote back, "Yes. Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between the time of day and pedestrian fatalities." You remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: "Statistically speaking, most pedestrian fatalities occur during the evening and night hours." You remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: "So may my specialty in the area of lighting and human factors result in a lot of my cases involving pedestrians."
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then do you defer to the defense — not the jury trying to give the full story to the jury — do you defer to the defense in exercising discretion on what you will or will not say to that jury back then?
DR. WOLFE: Well, allow me to explain if you will.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm asking you a question.
DR. WOLFE: Let me explain.
MR. BRENNAN: No, I'm asking you. Did you defer? Answer the question first. Did you defer to the defense on what information they wanted you to put in front of that last jury or not?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't defer to them. The reason for that comment is a few reasons.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, let me read it and then you can give any explanation you want.
JUDGE CANNONE: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Next question, Mr. Brennan, and you answer, Dr. Wolfe.
MR. BRENNAN: You said "if you don't want me to say this, that's fine." Are those your words?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Allow me to explain because for one, I want the jury to have an understanding of my background in lighting and human factors and how it relates to me seeing a lot of pedestrian impacts, right? So I want them to have that understanding. At the same time, I don't want them to get caught up in a statistic that just because there are more pedestrian impacts at night, this alleged incident must have occurred because of that statistic.
MR. BRENNAN: Question 31. "Have you been qualified as an expert in court before?" And you wrote back yes. Remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you made another comment. Do you remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I realized in my testimony I said about 20 times when you asked how many times I've been qualified. You were referring to my voir dire testimony.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. I misinterpreted your questions, which was my fault. But in looking at my dnt lists, it's 11 trials and seven depositions, 18 testimonies total.
MR. BRENNAN: Correct.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. "Not sure if you want me to clear this up or just leave it."
MR. BRENNAN: Wouldn't you want to clear up a misstatement when you realize you had made a mistake? Wouldn't you want to inform the court?
DR. WOLFE: I stated qualifications I didn't have. It was unintentional, but it was a mistake. Well, that's exactly why I put the comment in there.
MR. BRENNAN: Sir, you put the comment — you didn't put the comment to the Commonwealth, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, you all never contacted us, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you comment to the court who you made the representations in front of? Did you let the court know that you made a representation that was inaccurate?
DR. WOLFE: Again, that's why I put the comment in there to —
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you inform the court about your misrepresentation?
DR. WOLFE: No, I did not inform the court.
MR. BRENNAN: You relied on the defense and gave them the discretion whether they were going to clarify the record or not.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. But I provided the clarification. Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Brennan, could you move along, please?
MR. BRENNAN: As you sit here today, you don't really know how many communications you had with the defense before your last testimony, do you?
DR. WOLFE: For trial one?
MR. BRENNAN: Yes, trial one.
DR. WOLFE: I think it's all memorialized in the records and the emails that were produced.
MR. BRENNAN: The ones that were produced, but not things that were lost or destroyed or deleted.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Again, there are records, even though the physical texts aren't there, there's certainly records of the calls incoming and outgoing, as well as texts.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you remember when you testified in the voir dire, you were asked that before that morning when you walked into court, you had never met Attorney Jackson face to face?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: But you met him in court that day, right?
DR. WOLFE: I believe I met him that day. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You were asked whether or not you had ever discussed at trial. Now, after the voir dire on June 24th, you were asked whether you ever discussed the substance of any of your testimony. You remember that?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And so, when you shared questions and answers and suggestions by email, was the statement under oath — "you and I have never discussed the substance of the testimony" — is that still truthful?
DR. WOLFE: We never discussed it, sir. Again, I sent it to him on my own behalf. There was no discussion that took place between Mr. Jackson about that.
MR. BRENNAN: You made comments after this was exchanged.
DR. WOLFE: That was sent with the comments, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you were asked whether you had ever been paid by the defense. You said no. You were later paid by the defense, weren't you?
DR. WOLFE: ARCCA did send an invoice afterwards. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you talk to ARCCA about that? About the billing in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: You submitted your bill.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. ARCCA submitted the bill. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Dr. Kline — he was involved in the testing you did, wasn't he?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Why is it that Dr. Kline didn't come in and join you? Who made that decision for trial?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think it was around again when we were talking about those June calls. I think that there was some discussion between Mr. Jackson and myself about Dr. Kline's involvement, and ultimately he's also an accident reconstructionist. So, it essentially would have been duplicative testimony. So, we didn't feel — or Mr. Jackson, I don't think, felt it was necessary to call Dr. Kline as well.
MR. BRENNAN: That sounds like a little bit more than just scheduling, doesn't it?
DR. WOLFE: I would describe that as logistics, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Logistics. You had to describe what Dr. Kline's role was or wasn't in that report, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I went over his background as an accident reconstructionist.
MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Well, so you only talked about background and from that the decision was made not to call him. Or did you talk about his role in your testing and in your opinions?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't talk about his role, sir. I think ultimately the decision obviously was made by Mr. Jackson, not —
MR. BRENNAN: I understand that, but I want to know what the conversation was that led to the decision not to call Dr. Kline. It wasn't simply logistics. What was the discussion you had?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I told him that again we were — we're both accident reconstructionists. Dr. Rentschler is a biomechanical engineer, so there would have been essentially duplicative testimony from both of us.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, your report's not very clear who did what. Would you agree with me the report is a general report that has Wolfe's, Dr. Rentschler's, and Dr. Kline's name on it. Would you agree with me?
DR. WOLFE: All three of our names are on it. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: It doesn't distinguish who did what in that report, does it?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. But I think it certainly was testified to at the voir dire and in the time of trial before the voir dire.
MR. BRENNAN: When you spoke to the defense, did you explain to them what the different roles were for the different people that led to the decision not to call Dr. Kline?
DR. WOLFE: Again, we went over our backgrounds and I think from that you can deduce that.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't know what that means.
DR. WOLFE: Well, if you're familiar with what an accident reconstructionist does and you're familiar with what a biomechanical engineer does, then you would be able to understand that.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, it would be easy to understand if you could just tell us what the conversation was. That's what I'm asking you about.
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'll allow it.
MR. BRENNAN: When you had a conversation with the defense, did you tell them the role that Dr. Kline played in your investigation and in your conclusions?
DR. WOLFE: Again, I told him that we are both accident reconstructionists.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And he chose you instead of Dr. Kline. Did you say there was a difference between you and Dr. Kline and what you did?
DR. WOLFE: No. I again — we were both a part of the testing. We were both a part of the review. So, we had exactly the same role essentially.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you tell him that?
DR. WOLFE: No. I again told him that we were both accident reconstructionists.
MR. BRENNAN: And you remember that's all you said about it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. During the voir dire and the trial, did you get to watch any of the Commonwealth experts?
DR. WOLFE: No, I don't believe so.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever communicate with the defense about any questions and answers that could or should be asked?
DR. WOLFE: No, but I will note that during the entirety of the first trial, the Department of Justice was closely watching it, and we certainly had a direct line of communication with them, and they were giving us and providing us information about the trial as it was ongoing.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever communicate with the defense about questions and answers to ask?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever see anybody's testimony at any time during the first trial?
DR. WOLFE: I might have seen a few news clips, but I didn't watch any specifically.
MR. BRENNAN: No. Did you ever watch anybody's testimony? Did you ever watch any of the reconstruction testimony?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you, after the trial, spend any private time with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No. I left town.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You didn't go to lunches or parties or anything like that?
DR. WOLFE: No, I went straight to the airport.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And sir, is there any other communications that you've had with the defense that you didn't tell us about outside the texts and the phone calls and the Signal calls? Are there any other communications that you can think of that you had with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir. I've provided everything I have in my possession.
MR. BRENNAN: I have no further questions.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Jackson, do you have anything?
MR. JACKSON: I sure do. Your honor, thank you. We going to get to Dr. Rentschler today or not?
JUDGE CANNONE: Well, you know how much time Mr. Brennan's — just, I'm just asking you. I hope so. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I approach?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, may I approach the witness for the document?
JUDGE CANNONE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Dr. Wolfe, I am providing you with a document. Do you recognize it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What is it?
DR. WOLFE: It is the order for production of records.
MR. JACKSON: And is that an order from this court?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And is this the order that you were provided with in response to recent matters with regard to this court and what you should or should not be keeping in terms of records, and what you should be producing with regard to records?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you please read the — well, excuse me. At this time, your honor, I have it in front of me.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Well, it's — I understand. So if your honor has it, I would like it to be part of the hearing. Indistinct.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah, exactly. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Two. Thank you. I offer it into evidence, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: May I allow the witness to have that, please?
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: Take that.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, your honor. Dr. Wolfe, I realize that the court has a copy of this, but I'd like you to please read the first sentence in the indentation at the top after "following."
DR. WOLFE: Okay. All records within ARCCA's or its owners, partners, employees, or representatives, possession, custody or control in whatever format kept that reflect or in any way relate to work performed or contemplated and related in any way to billing, payment, compensation, and/or reimbursement of any kind in connection with Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
MR. JACKSON: Did you, and to the best of your knowledge, did everyone associated with ARCCA comply completely with this order with regard to the records that are requested in it?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Everything I had in my possession and that ARCCA had in our possession, we produced.
MR. JACKSON: What I'd like to do is to go back in time with regard to your interactions with the United States Department of Justice in February of 2024. Were you — was ARCCA under a contract with the United States Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Was there a contract number assigned to that contract?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Was there an internal number at ARCCA for which all time was billed for your work on that matter in February of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did that contract number that began in February of 2024 ever change in ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: Well, let me just clarify something real quick. So, the original case when it came in from the Department of Justice was in the year of 2023. So, when that project was opened with the Department of Justice, we assigned a project number to it. That project number from the original case with the Department of Justice remained the same all the way through the trial.
MR. JACKSON: And now — let's go from the trial, in June of 2024.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: From June of 2024 to the end of December of 2024, did that contract number ever change?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: To your knowledge, when you were entering time under that contract number for your work, did you understand that that time was going to be billed to that contract number with the US government?
DR. WOLFE: That was my assumption. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have from any time in 2024 any understanding that any of your time that you were entering was to go to be billed to the defense team in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: I believe it was sometime in mid to end of March of 2024. Again, that would have been over a month from when we issued our report to the Department of Justice.
MR. JACKSON: Your honor, may I approach the witness? Thank you. Your honor, what I have is the entire production that ARCA made. I think it would ease in terms of the --
JUDGE CANNONE: Sure, he can have it.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You have, pursuant to the judge's permission, the production to refer to to answer any of my questions if you need to.
DR. WOLFE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Now, in March of 2024, had your final report been issued, the final report that you prepared for the US government?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, that was issued on February 12th of 2024.
MR. JACKSON: From February 12th of 2024 until you sit here today, has there been any change whatsoever to that report?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Have the conclusions in that report stayed the same since it was finalized for the US Department of Justice in February of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And that was testified to at the voir dire and certainly at the time of trial.
MR. JACKSON: Did the defense at any time have any discussions with you about the substance of that report to the United States Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: No, we had no idea who the defense was or the Commonwealth for that matter.
MR. JACKSON: And when you took the stand in the voir dire testimony in the first trial, before you took the stand, did you have any discussions with any member of the defense about the substance of that report?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any discussions with any member of the defense before the voir dire testimony other than discussions about background and qualifications?
DR. WOLFE: Other than again some logistics about how to get up here, where to go, things of that nature. But beyond that, no.
MR. JACKSON: Other than logistics, how to get up here, when you were coming, background and qualifications, did you have any discussions with any member of the defense of any kind with regard to the report to the US Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did the defense ever try to get you to improve or change any aspect of the report you had issued to the Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: At the time that ARCA was working for the United States Department of Justice, do you know whether ARCA could have been retained by any other party for any aspect related to the February 2024 report?
DR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
MR. JACKSON: In 2024, did the federal government prevent ARCA from entering into any contract with any other party with regard to your report of February of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: So we were -- again, because we were still under contract with the Department of Justice, we could not have any other formal agreements, contracts, retainers, anything of that nature, because we were still under contract with the Department of Justice.
MR. JACKSON: Now let's go to the emails that were discussed with you, starting with March 20, 2024 and then the subsequent email of March 22nd, 2024. Okay. Are you there, sir?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I think so.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Well, let's test to make sure. March 20, 2024, 10:49 a.m., from Alan Jackson to Daniel Wolfe. Do you have that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And that email states, in substance, "Thank you so much for taking the time to get on the phone this morning. Pursuant to our conversation, please feel free to forward an engagement letter to this email address. I will get that countersigned and return to you forthwith along with your retainer as required." As of March 20th, 2024, was there any understanding that ARCA would be compensated by the defense for any aspect of current or future work?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any understanding or discussion that ARCA would receive any reward or payment or compensation for any contemplated work with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: The discussions that you had with Mr. Jackson that are the subject of this March 2024 email -- were there any inducements to ARCA from the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: After that email was received by you, did you have any understanding or expectation of any kind that ARCA would be compensated for any work associated with this case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: What was briefly the essence of that conversation that's discussed in the March 20, 2024 email?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it correlates to -- I'm looking back at this phone record log. There was an incoming call to the ARCA mainline on March 20th, 2024 at 7 a.m., and that's Pacific Standard Time, so that would have been 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. So that call lasted for 39 minutes, and as I mentioned earlier with Mr. Brennan, I think that was a conversation about Alan trying to get in touch with me, letting us know that "Hey, we've received y'all's report as part of this federal investigation. How can we go about utilizing you guys to come testify at trial? Can you guys come testify at trial?" And then as I mentioned, I went over with him our typical protocol for when a case comes in and a client wants to utilize us to testify, which is certainly outlined in that email.
DR. WOLFE: But obviously, given the very unique nature of this case, I had no idea if that was something that was okay, if it was allowed, what to do. So subsequent to that email, I then reached out to the Department of Justice to get clarification on what the guidelines would be to move forward.
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to come back to these emails, but I want to go right to the July invoice from ARCA to the Werksman Jackson firm. Can you locate that? Is that in your production? It's the July invoice.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. I have it located. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever have any discussion of any kind with any member of the defense team about that invoice before July 12th of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir. And I will note I am not a part of the invoicing or accounting at ARCA -- when a bill goes out, how much it goes out for, who it goes to. I'm not a part of that at all.
MR. JACKSON: For each and every entry on that invoice, did you have any understanding, as you're making each of those entries, that the defense team was going to be paying for any of that work?
DR. WOLFE: No. Again, my boss wants to know what I'm doing with my time, right? What am I working on? Am I sitting there twiddling my thumbs, or am I working on a case? So that's the purpose of tracking time, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So can you please describe how it is you enter time and what your thought process is as you're entering each of those time entries? Not each one, but just collectively -- how do you do it, why do you do it, and how does that work in your firm?
DR. WOLFE: So again, there's usually just a spreadsheet. Sometimes I'll write it down, maybe my project manager will enter it. But ultimately I keep track -- if I've got an 8-hour day, right, I'm working on multiple cases that day, right, so I figure out -- all right, did I have a telephone call, did I work on a report for this long, right? So I keep track of my time in a spreadsheet so that ultimately my boss and the accounting department knows what Dr. Wolfe was doing on this day, this month.
MR. JACKSON: Let's take the first entry on May 1st, 2024. You see that?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have any understanding when you made that entry that the defense was going to be paying for that time?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: 6/9/2024. Did you have any understanding when you made that entry that the defense was going to be paying for that time?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: For any entry on this invoice, did you have any understanding that the defense was going to be paying for this time?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: When you're entering this time, was your understanding that this time was under the contract with the US government?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, because that's the project number that I put that time towards.
MR. JACKSON: So at the time you're making each one of these entries on this entire invoice, what project number are you billing to, and which one do you have in mind at that time?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall it off the top of my head. I know it was the project number for the Department of Justice case, though.
MR. JACKSON: Right. I'm sorry -- I wasn't asking about the specific number, but the ultimate client when you're making each of these entries. Who is it?
DR. WOLFE: It's the Department of Justice.
MR. JACKSON: Is it the defense in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did you ever have any discussion at all with any member of the defense team that this invoice was going to be sent to the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No. And as I mentioned earlier, the Department of Justice forbid that. So we could not be retained or in a contract with the defense.
MR. JACKSON: I would like to now go back to the emails we were talking about. Specifically, we left off with March 20, 2024. I want to now go to the March 22nd, 2024 email. I'm just going to shorthand that, refer to it as the "pause" email. What had happened between March 20th, 2024 and March 22nd, 2024? Do you have the tab for that? The email that you're looking at? Sorry -- Tab 1, please.
DR. WOLFE: Tab. Right. So the the first email that we were talking about on March 20th, 2024 from Mr. Jackson to myself, it looks like the next email was from me to Mr. Jackson, two days later, March 22nd, 2024, at 6:00 a.m. I sent an email saying, "Hi, Alan. Subsequent to our conversation on Wednesday, the US District Attorney's Office has asked that we pause on any further conversation until we receive additional information from their office regarding our involvement moving forward. I will provide you an update when I have it." So what it sounds like, and from what I recall, is that between March 20th, 2024 and March 22nd, 2024, I had reached out to the US Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office to get clarification on again moving forward with potentially testifying in the case.
MR. JACKSON: And what did the United States Department of Justice tell you?
DR. WOLFE: They said to wait, basically, until they internally figured it out.
MR. JACKSON: So what was your conclusion from that conversation as to whether you could do any work on this case at that point?
DR. WOLFE: At that point I I didn't even know if we were going to be allowed to testify. I know that from my conversation with the Department of Justice, I I knew that there was a great deal of confusion on their end on on whether or not, you know, as expert witnesses involved in a federal investigation, if we would be even allowed to testify in the state matter. So their legal teams were trying to, I think, figure out what the road forward looked like.
MR. JACKSON: And were you entering time under that US contract matter in March of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And do you know where that time was being billed to?
DR. WOLFE: I would — well, it would have been the same project number as the Department of Justice, right?
MR. JACKSON: That time was not to your knowledge being billed to the defense, was it?
DR. WOLFE: No. Again, through the entirety — from again when the case from the Department of Justice came in in 2023 till the trial concluded — all of the time was put to that one project number.
MR. JACKSON: In March of 2024 — as of March 22nd — was any engagement letter sent to the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: As of March 22nd, was there any retainer sent to the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No. There was never a contract or retainer sent to the defense in 2024 at all.
MR. JACKSON: So in terms of the discussion in the March 2024 email about engagement letter and retainers, were any of those ever sent?
DR. WOLFE: No, we were not allowed.
MR. JACKSON: And let's go back to that discussion of March 20th about engagement letter, retainer letter. Was that discussion where you were talking specifically about what you were going to do with the defense in terms of that relationship, or was it a general discussion of the policies and billing procedures of ARCCA?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly, as is alluded to in the email, I I prescribed to him our typical operating procedure for when a case comes in. But again, I remember a part of that call — there was a great deal of confusion about what do we even do from here?
MR. JACKSON: So as of March 22nd, 2024, can you just briefly describe whether there was any further activity at all by ARCCA with regard to the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No, I I don't believe so. I don't think that there was any communication, I don't think, until about a month later in April after I had received that clarification.
MR. JACKSON: Now, let's go to April — the voir dire hearing of April. When you sat on the stand under oath for the voir dire hearing, had there been any substantive conversations about the topics in the February report to the Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: None at all?
DR. WOLFE: None.
MR. JACKSON: What briefly were the substance of the conversations you had with the defense team as of the moment you sat for the voir dire hearing in April of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: Again, they were all scheduling logistics. And when I look at these records here, you know, I see a phone call for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 6 minutes, 6 minutes. There's a few that are for one minute, which I think again we were just maybe playing phone tag, but again these calls are very short in nature. So again it was just trying to figure out — I mean, obviously I know that this was a large trial, a lengthy trial, a lot of witnesses, things are fluid. So I know that Alan ultimately, I think, would reach out to me and then, like I said, he would give me an idea — "Hey, do you guys, can you come this day?" — and then I would relay that to Dr. Rentschler and say, "Yeah, that works for me," so that I would get back to Alan. So that's that's what those conversations were.
DR. WOLFE: Again, coordinating our testimony to appear for the voir dire.
MR. JACKSON: It might appear to some that there were a number of communications with the defense before you sat for the voir dire hearing. Were those conversations about logistics, background, and qualifications, or did those conversations entail other topics?
DR. WOLFE: No, it it it's what we've covered again. That March 20th, 2024 phone call — the very first one of 39 minutes — again was us trying to figure out what the heck to do. The May 1st phone call, which was 40 minutes, again was me going over my background, the work that I do, my qualifications, education. Other than that there are very short phone calls, like I said — 6 minutes, 3 minutes, 1 minute, 9 minutes, right? And again that was in preparation to appear, in terms of scheduling, logistics, timing for the voir dire hearing.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall the Commonwealth asking you any questions at all about whether you were being compensated by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I don't recall a single question by the Commonwealth on that. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did the Commonwealth ask you any questions at that voir dire hearing about whether you had any substantive discussions with the defense about your February report to the United States Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe they asked. No.
MR. JACKSON: Did the Commonwealth at that voir dire hearing ask you any questions about whether you had any promises or inducements from the defense before you sat down for that voir dire hearing?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Now let's go to the next tab. With regard to the outlines that you were asked on direct examination by ADA Brennan — you've described this situation. You describe how it is you viewed this situation. Have you ever been in this situation before, where you're under contract with the federal government, there are rules of the road, so to speak, about what you can do, what you can't do, and then you've got a private defense team?
DR. WOLFE: No. I think it's truly one of a kind, and I I don't know that that'll ever happen again.
MR. JACKSON: And have you ever been in a situation like that since?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Did that cause you to have more or less communications with Mr. Jackson to figure out what it is you were going to do or not do?
DR. WOLFE: Sure. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of your outlines that you sent to Mr. Jackson, did he ever broach in any way any idea of you sending him an outline?
DR. WOLFE: He never asked. No.
MR. JACKSON: Was there even any discussion that you might send an outline?
DR. WOLFE: No. As I mentioned, it's something that for me is customary as I'm preparing internally for trial, right? I'm not going to come to trial, not review anything, not look over my notes. It's something I do internally so that I can have an understanding of how do I want to try to answer questions that might be posed to me, such that I can help the jury understand how I arrived at my opinions.
MR. JACKSON: Before you sent that email with those outlines, was it important to you that the jury got a fair and accurate presentation of the work you had performed in association with your February report?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I I think that this is my job.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any other motivation that you had in sending that outline and that email to Mr. Jackson, other than making sure testimony was elicited that would make your perspective clear to the jury?
DR. WOLFE: No, that was the only reason.
MR. JACKSON: Were you trying to in any way favor the defense with regard to that trial?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely not.
MR. JACKSON: What was your goal both with sending the outline and the testimony at trial?
DR. WOLFE: Again, as I mentioned, I think it's to help the jury understand the report, the analysis, what I did, what I reviewed.
MR. JACKSON: Did the defense ever ask you to communicate to the jury about any aspect of your report in any way?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: And did you in fact communicate to the jury what it is you intended — to effectuate the goal that you just described?
DR. WOLFE: I think so. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And with regard to the comments that were in those outlines, what was your intention in putting in those comments?
DR. WOLFE: Again, it was to provide the jury — for example, with the nighttime pedestrian statistic — I wanted them to have an understanding that I do a lot of nighttime invisibility work, right? So therefore I see a lot of pedestrian impacts, but again, I don't want them to take that statistic and say, "Well, we have this alleged incident, there was bad weather conditions, it was nighttime — therefore we should give that more weight."
MR. JACKSON: And is that desire of yours — in your mind — to help the defense more than to help the Commonwealth?
DR. WOLFE: No, it's impartial. And I will note I give numerous presentations and I think slide two or three on presentations I give, it's going over that very same statistic. I I would never shy or hide away from that statistic. And I believe I testified to that very statistic or that comment at the voir dire and in my trial testimony.
MR. JACKSON: In terms of — after you sent the emails with calls and issues pertaining to direct testimony, did you ever have any communication of any kind whatsoever with the defense team?
DR. WOLFE: No, he didn't. Mr. Jackson didn't even respond. And I think when I sent the direct outline, it was Sunday evening before I hopped on a plane. And I think by the time I got into Boston, it was like 1:00 a.m. So I didn't even have a chance.
MR. JACKSON: When you took the stand to testify the next day in that trial, had you had one word of a conversation with Mr. Jackson or any other member of the defense team about the substance of your upcoming testimony?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: So you went and sat during that trial and gave testimony to the jury without ever having talked to a member of the defense team about the substance of your February 2024 report.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall any member of the Commonwealth asking any questions at all during your trial testimony about whether you had been compensated by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall the Commonwealth ever asking any questions at all whether you had communicated with any member of the defense with regard to your testimony during your trial testimony?
DR. WOLFE: I don't think that was asked.
MR. JACKSON: Do you recall any questions from the Commonwealth about whether back in March or any other time you had been promised or induced by the defense? Do you remember any of those questions?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember any questions by the Commonwealth at either the voir dire or the direct testimony about whether you had had conversations with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: Do you remember any questions of the Commonwealth at all before you sat down and after you sat down for trial about whether you had any text communications with any members of the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: At the end of the trial, did you have any understanding whatsoever that ARCCA was going to be compensated by the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: At the end of the trial, did any member of the defense ever say to you, "We're now going to compensate you for any of your work up to the time of your trial testimony."
DR. WOLFE: No. And the records certainly reflect that I never spoke to Mr. Jackson after the trial in 2024. There were no conversations between us.
MR. JACKSON: Well, let's go beyond Mr. Jackson. Let's go to any human being. Did you have any discussions with any human being as to whether the defense was going to compensate you for any work, travel, expenses, disbursements that you had or incurred up to and through your trial testimony?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: And at that time, were you still under contract with the United States Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Now, let's proceed to December of 2024. Were there any conversations from the end of the trial until December of 2024 other than logistics? Well, were there any conversations of any kind? And please state — summarize briefly what they were — or texts.
DR. WOLFE: The only communication that I had with the defense was Mr. Jackson, after I took the stand. I think that he sent me a text just thanking me again for my time traveling up here. I said, you know, it was great, and then we left and that was it. I did not communicate with Mr. Jackson for the remainder of 2024.
MR. JACKSON: Now let's go to recent communications in 2025. Did you have any communications with any member of the defense with regard to the potential? Well, let me go backwards. Let me go to the invoice. Let me go to the July invoice. Okay. How did you learn that that invoice was paid? If you learned at all, how did you learn that that invoice was paid?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't learn. I didn't know that it was paid. I didn't even know it was sent.
MR. JACKSON: Now, let's go to this year. Did the defense approach ARCCA to see if they might be able to testify in this trial that's currently pending?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think that the first communication of 2025 that happened between myself and Mr. Jackson was in February — February 13th of 2025. There were two calls, 25 minutes and 5 minutes, but it looks like there was just a disconnect. So it was about a 30-minute call with him in February of this year.
MR. JACKSON: And what was the substance of that call?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think back to that time frame, I became aware that there was a motion or two regarding ARCCA and potentially excluding our testimony for the upcoming trial. I also know that around that time I unfortunately ended up getting a significant amount of harassment through emails, and unfortunately it even spread into my personal life where my wife was affected. They were posting pictures of my four kids all over the internet. So it was somewhat of a difficult time on my end, and I think what prompted me to reach out to Mr. Jackson was to figure out what's going on. Why is my family all over the internet? Why are they talking about me? Why am I getting all these hate emails? So it was, I think, a conversation to figure out, hey, you know, there's been several months that have passed.
DR. WOLFE: It looks like there's some motions pending against us. I'm getting a bunch of harassment. What's going on?
MR. JACKSON: Do you have an understanding of why you were getting hate emails, hate communications, your wife, your children? What did you conclude was the reason why you were receiving that?
DR. WOLFE: I honestly don't know. I presume it was about comments made about me in court or that were represented about ARCCA or myself.
MR. JACKSON: So just so I'm clear on that — it was, you believe, regarding comments about ARCCA — and what can you be a little more specific about your understanding?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I know that I received several emails that, you know, insinuated that I perjured myself on the stand. Like I said, it just — and a lot of hateful comments just about me and the work that I do. I received several emails with respect to that.
MR. JACKSON: Sir, do you believe you have ever made an untruthful statement at all with regard to this matter?
DR. WOLFE: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Have you done your best to try to provide accurate and truthful information in this matter?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Now to the last part — which is, did the defense contact you with regard to potential further work? I want to separate out now and move on from the work that you did with regard to the US Department of Justice, your February 2024 report. We went all the way through the trial in that matter. We went to the end of 2024. Now I want to come to 2025 in a different subject matter, which is communications with the defense about doing further work for this trial.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: What was the nature of the communication? So we can move through this rather quickly, but importantly I want to get it complete and accurate — just describe what the communications were on a timeline basis, subject matter, and with regard to your understanding of why you were contacted.
DR. WOLFE: So, subsequent to that February 13th call, as I mentioned, Alan had indicated — Mr. Jackson had indicated — that he preferred to utilize Signal to communicate. So we exchanged a few messages and phone calls on that. Like I said, they were rather short. I'm—
MR. JACKSON: I'm going to interrupt you for a bit. Was there any discussion about the reason for Signal, because the prosecution had been subpoenaing the phones of Mr. and Mrs. Read, and seizing the phone of Miss Read, and phones of defense attorneys had been requested to be looked at. Was there any understanding in your mind that there was a need to go to Signal to protect the defense and the integrity of the defense?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't know that was happening, but like I said, I did not have a problem with communicating. To me, it was just another messaging app. I know people use all different types of applications, so I didn't have a problem with it.
MR. JACKSON: Was there anything in your mind nefarious or underhanded about using Signal?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: And my understanding is it's the first time you used a Signal app with regard to a matter professionally. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Did you get any understanding from communications with the defense that there was anything at all untoward about communicating through Signal?
DR. WOLFE: No, I was not aware of any issue with using that communication.
MR. JACKSON: Was there any communication whatsoever that you can recall on Signal that you have any concern about as you sit here today?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. JACKSON: And what were the majority of the communications as best you recall with the defense on Signal?
DR. WOLFE: Well, as I described, I know that — like I said, it was primarily confined to a pretty short window in March, but Mr. Jackson had indicated that around that time, I think ARCCA was being litigated by this court in terms of our involvement in the case. I know that they had started to, I think, receive discovery as it relates to the Commonwealth's accident reconstructionist and biomechanist. So they were, I think, interested in utilizing us potentially in the second trial. So I think that they had submitted a letter to the US attorney's office to try to be able to work with us. I said that on my end I could reach out to them because I hadn't heard from them in months.
DR. WOLFE: So I think it was around mid-March I had reached out to the US attorney's office to try to get my own clarification on whether or not we could move forward.
MR. JACKSON: All right. So I want to stop you there. Apologize for interrupting you, sir, but what was the date that you reached out to the US Department of Justice to see if you could participate in the second trial?
DR. WOLFE: Probably around mid-March, maybe March 18th, March 15th.
MR. JACKSON: Did you have an Did you have an understanding at that time that the Commonwealth had retained an entirely new firm and expert in the area of accident reconstruction?
DR. WOLFE: I think Mr. Jackson had indicated that there had been some material disclosed, but I think it was just a simple report or something of that nature at that point in time.
MR. JACKSON: Was it a report just like a page and a quarter or so of findings and conclusions and then a slide presentation? Is that what it was?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, that sounds right.
MR. JACKSON: Was any of that information at all helpful or meaningful to you in your ability to respond to that and to determine what was done and what ARCCA might want to do in response?
DR. WOLFE: Well, certainly not the report. The report was very, very brief. The PowerPoint somewhat hard to follow, but again, it really didn't provide a complete picture.
MR. JACKSON: And in terms of scans, electronic data, etc., do you recall when you finally got that information?
DR. WOLFE: Well, I think that would have been after the defense officially retained us on March 26. I think that's when we received that information.
MR. JACKSON: So in terms of the information that you received, those scans, etc., did that allow you to proceed with any meaningful work?
DR. WOLFE: Well, it gave us a better insight into the foundation or the basis for the analysis. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Could you have proceeded with a contract with anybody, not just the defense, but anybody, with the level of information you had before you got the scans and the data?
DR. WOLFE: I think it would be very difficult to do so.
MR. JACKSON: Could you have even created a scope of work based upon that report and that PowerPoint presentation?
DR. WOLFE: Most likely not, just because some of the areas that Dr. Rentschler and myself are particularly interested in are extremely vague in that report and PowerPoint.
MR. JACKSON: Once you got the level of information that you have now, what is the ordinary time it would take in the regular course of ARCCA's business to evaluate that information and prepare your own report, analysis, and findings in the ordinary course? How much time would it take ARCCA to do that?
DR. WOLFE: Well, certainly for the nature of this case, as I mentioned, we were officially retained by the defense in March, on March 26, 2025. As I mentioned, I myself just got word from the Department of Justice just a day or two, I think, prior to that, that we could move forward. So, immediately — I indicated to Mr. Jackson on the 26th that we did have authorization to move forward. He immediately asked that I send over our typical procedure with the contract and retainer. And I think that same day, the 26th or the 27th, his office sent over — I believe — links to notices of discovery, I believe 1 through 62, which I think encompassed about 800 gigabytes worth of information and data.
MR. JACKSON: How much, relative to 800 gigabytes — is that a little data, medium amount of data, or a lot of data?
DR. WOLFE: Voluminous. A lot of data. So we immediately started to review that, and I feel like maybe I speak for most experts — one thing we always want is more time, right? So in a case like this, ideally we would be talking months to be able to sift through all of that information, be able to do analysis, be able to do testing, be able to write a report. So I think certainly we are on the order of months, not weeks.
MR. JACKSON: What did you do, however, if anything, to try to expedite the work and get it done as quickly as you could once you got the level of information you had from Aperture?
DR. WOLFE: Certainly. So I certainly understood that the trial was imminent. So I worked as quickly as I could along with Dr. Rentschler to review that material and certainly in parallel try to determine, okay, what testing do we need to do to effectively evaluate and potentially come up with opinions for this case?
MR. JACKSON: Did you put other work aside at ARCCA to work on this matter?
DR. WOLFE: Absolutely. Work and personal things.
MR. JACKSON: What did you put aside? Just one example.
DR. WOLFE: So the other week, my wife and I celebrated our 10-year anniversary. Congratulations from the court. Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: So it affected his personal life. I understand. Okay, I'll move on. Your Honor, with regard to the work — you performed it on an expedited basis, as you said. You shortened the time period down as much as your firm possibly could. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: You said you would like to have had more time.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct. But I understood your honor's order and I wanted to beat that deadline. So I worked as quickly as I could over the last week to ensure that we could respect that deadline, and we completed our testing.
MR. JACKSON: And with regard to the testing that you just described — does that testing relate to any previous work, or is it all in response to the new expert for the Commonwealth, Aperture, and the new information from Aperture that came in iterations through the month of February?
DR. WOLFE: It would be in response to Dr. Welcher's work. Certainly, much of what was alluded to in his report and PowerPoint was not discussed in the first trial.
MR. JACKSON: Could you have done any of the work you've been working on the past month or so — could you have done any of that work without receiving the Aperture report and slides and scans?
DR. WOLFE: No. I don't even know what we would be responding to then.
MR. JACKSON: So you needed the Aperture information before you could even start working.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: Do you have in mind, or does ARCCA have in mind, any further testing that you need to do, or have you completed what ARCCA needs to do with regard to fairly and properly responding to the new work of Aperture?
DR. WOLFE: I think we're satisfied that we've completed that testing. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: And what, if any, more work do you contemplate needs to be done as you sit here today going forward?
DR. WOLFE: Well, as I mentioned, all the testing is done. So I think the analysis and the report to follow.
MR. JACKSON: To use expert engineering terminology — is it QA/QCing the report? Is it putting all the information together in a compilation so everybody can understand what you've done and make clear your findings and conclusions? Is that what's left to do?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. And I will note, obviously as the court is aware, we've produced all of that raw test data, photographs, video. So it's all there. The basis and the foundation for what the report will lay out has all been provided to the court.
MR. JACKSON: You got ahead of me — and thankfully — to my next question, which is: there's nothing that you have, that you've done, that hasn't already been produced pursuant to the court's order. Is that correct?
DR. WOLFE: No — I think that we've responded to the court's order. Yes.
MR. JACKSON: How long on an expedited basis? Well, let me ask: in the ordinary course, how long would it take you to do this last part of your work in the ordinary course?
DR. WOLFE: Probably around a month would be fair.
MR. JACKSON: However, it would take a month in the ordinary course. How quickly can you get that work done fairly?
DR. WOLFE: I'm hoping, if it pleases the court, hopefully May 7th will work.
MR. JACKSON: And so you believe everything would be completed by May 7th.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. JACKSON: That's all I have at this point, your honor.
MR. BRENNAN: Right. Mr. Doctor, you're suggesting that it's going to take until May 7th for you to complete your reports in this case and the analysis.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know when this trial started?
DR. WOLFE: I think like a week or so ago.
MR. BRENNAN: You provided raw data last Friday.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: But you would agree you still have not provided any reports.
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You said if you were notified or received information you could have your testing and opinions done within a month.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Potentially. Again, it would also depend on when we got authorization from the Department of Justice, which as I mentioned was at the very end of March.
MR. BRENNAN: I understand that. We're going to talk about that separately. I'm talking specifically about how long it would take if you received the information. You said that you could have the testing and reports done in one month.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. I don't know — I said the testing, the reports, and everything.
MR. BRENNAN: Would it take longer than a month?
DR. WOLFE: Ideally, I think it depends on what kind of report we're talking about. I think if it's something along the lines that Dr. Welcher produced, I think it could be pretty quick.
MR. BRENNAN: You said March 26 is when you received authorization and you're going to have things done by May 7th. So that's a month and a week.
DR. WOLFE: Sounds about right.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Do you know when the Commonwealth in this case turned over Dr. Welcher's information to the defense? Do you know?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you know that it was turned over — the report — on January 30th? Just the report?
DR. WOLFE: I didn't know that.
MR. BRENNAN: And the file in its entirety was turned over by February 5th. Did you know that?
DR. WOLFE: I don't, your honor.
MR. BRENNAN: And if you had a month from February 5th to complete your testing report, you could have been done by March 5th or even the second week of March, couldn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Presuming we had authorization — the defense had authorization from the Department of Justice as well as ARCCA. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Putting aside the authorization. I'm going to ask you about that, but just the time you need to test. If you knew or received the information by February 5th, you could have been done by March 5th or mid-March, couldn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Potentially. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you're going to get it done that quickly now. So, wouldn't that be an accurate guide to when you could have done it then?
DR. WOLFE: It's certainly not ideal, but we certainly are working as quickly as we can.
MR. BRENNAN: I know it's not ideal, but isn't it the same time frame? Whatever it's going to take you from March 26th, you could have done from February 5th.
DR. WOLFE: True. Again, I don't know the timeline in terms of what exactly was produced when from Dr. Welcher. So I'm not aware of that.
MR. BRENNAN: But I'm not asking about the timeline. I'm talking about the time needed to deal with this information — you said you could have done it in around a month.
DR. WOLFE: I think a month or more. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So, your contract with the federal government ended — ARCCA did — in June of 2024, didn't it?
DR. WOLFE: I believe it was sometime last year. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know the Commonwealth notified the defense that they were going to have a new expert back in October of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Are you aware of any effort by ARCCA or the defense to try to facilitate an agreement that the defense could use ARCCA's witnesses back in October or November of 2024?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Are you aware of any efforts by the defense to try to notify the federal government to be able to use ARCCA in December or January?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: And so as far as you knew, this came out of nowhere in March that the defense wanted to use ARCCA — or specifically you and Dr. Rentschler — in late March of 2025.
DR. WOLFE: No, I think again it was like I said around February of 2025. I know that like I said when I spoke to Mr. Jackson, that he had indicated that the ARCCA issue was being litigated and I think that like I said there were multiple motions pending against us and he didn't even know if he could move forward with us at that point in time.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know why the defense waited until February 2025 to even seek permission from the federal government to retain you and Dr. Rentschler so you could review the materials?
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Next question.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you happen to know that?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know. No.
MR. BRENNAN: You shared with us communications you had with the United States Attorney's Office. Were you receiving information in this case since the last trial from the defense or from the United States Attorney's Office?
DR. WOLFE: What do you mean with respect to information?
MR. BRENNAN: Evidence, discovery, information from the Department of Justice? Anybody?
DR. WOLFE: No. Not until recently. No.
MR. BRENNAN: So you haven't seen any discovery until after February of 2025. Isn't that fair to say?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Now, when you were involved in this case before trial last year, we talked about your communications and conversations with the defense. Was anybody giving you information as an intermediary? Is anybody updating you on the defense of the case or giving other information to you?
DR. WOLFE: Yeah, I think I previously testified that the Department of Justice was closely watching the trial and providing us information.
MR. BRENNAN: What information were they providing you about the trial?
DR. WOLFE: I think that they provided information regarding some of the witnesses that had testified — with respect to I think the reconstructionist, and I think some of the evidence.
MR. BRENNAN: So, when the Department of Justice was giving you information during the trial about witnesses, what witnesses do you remember they were giving you information about?
DR. WOLFE: The one that comes to mind was — and I don't even recall his name — it would have been the accident reconstructionist.
MR. BRENNAN: Is it a coincidence that when you were receiving information from the Department of Justice about particular witnesses testifying in this case, is it a coincidence that your phone calls and text messages are more frequent? Is it a coincidence?
DR. WOLFE: Yes, I presume so.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, when you were receiving information from the Department of Justice about witness testimony in this case, was that part of the catalyst for you to either call or text the defense and ask questions?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever share any of the information you received from the Department of Justice with the defense?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: When you were receiving information from the Department of Justice about witness testimony, that was before you testified. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: And when they were giving you information, did they ever give you any live video?
DR. WOLFE: No, it was just verbal communication.
MR. BRENNAN: And they were giving you updates and summaries of testimony?
DR. WOLFE: I wouldn't say summaries. They just pointed out some key things I think that came out.
MR. BRENNAN: What were the key things they were talking about with the reconstructionist testimony? What were they telling you?
DR. WOLFE: I think it was as it relates to the arm being outstretched and I think some of the kinematics of the pedestrian. I also think there was some mention of potentially some DNA evidence.
MR. BRENNAN: And is that how at trial — even though you had no evidence that was produced as part of your report or to consider for your report — that you knew that there was DNA evidence? Because of the intermediary, because of the Department of Justice?
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you know there was a sequestration order in this case that you were not supposed to consider or review other witnesses' testimony or information? Did you know that?
DR. WOLFE: I was never made aware of that.
MR. BRENNAN: Nobody made you aware about a sequestration order in this case?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: But you did in fact receive information about other witnesses' testimony before you testified in this case in front of the jury, didn't you? From the Department of Justice.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: What other witnesses were you advised about — their testimony and issues in this case — before your testimony in this case?
DR. WOLFE: That's all I recall.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, you said it was more than one. You said some witnesses. Take a moment, think back. What other witnesses stand out that you were offered information from the Department of Justice about before you testified?
DR. WOLFE: As I mentioned, I don't know which witness provided the DNA information, but I would presume that that's the other witness.
MR. BRENNAN: So, you heard information — you learned that there was information and testimony about DNA.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And certainly when you took that information before you testified, you considered it when you testified, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: No, because again our report was already solidified. So it didn't change my opinion in any way.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, not about whether it changed your opinion. You testified about DNA, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: I don't believe that I did. No.
MR. BRENNAN: I'm going to approach, if I may, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. BRENNAN: This is your outline with your comments. You recognize this?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: I'd like to exhibit, please.
COURT CLERK: Exhibit three.
MR. BRENNAN: So, as an expert, when you receive information, you need time to look at the raw data, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Potentially. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You need time to look at the report of another expert, don't you?
DR. WOLFE: Potentially.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you've got to consider whether or not you think that their testing is accurate. You can test their testing, can't you?
DR. WOLFE: You can. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And you can also generate new tests based on what you've read if you think that there is some explanation needed.
DR. WOLFE: Yes. Perhaps. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And then you could write a report.
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: So it's fair to say when an expert introduces new information, testing materials, it takes — if not at least a month — to process through that information, vet it, and then consider your own testing.
DR. WOLFE: Well, if they've already authored a report and done their own testing, that should be solidified and memorialized already.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, if there's new testing, if a new expert does something new and an expert wants to look at it — you would agree to sift through that much information, consider and vet it, and then do independent testing — it could take over a month, couldn't it?
DR. WOLFE: If it's necessary, and it would be the expert that determines whether or not that was necessary, wouldn't it?
MR. BRENNAN: Sure. And if your report is not due until May 7th — is that what you said?
DR. WOLFE: May 7th. Yes. May 7th.
MR. BRENNAN: It could take an expert, if they wanted to do testing based on new testing that you provided, over a month, couldn't it?
DR. WOLFE: It depends. I can't answer that.
MR. BRENNAN: When you wrote that initial report — how many pages was it?
DR. WOLFE: 10, 12 pages.
MR. BRENNAN: The original DOJ report, the report that you produced in this case with your opinions.
DR. WOLFE: Yes, that sounds about right.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. You never gave the raw data for that report, did you?
DR. WOLFE: No, it was all protected.
MR. BRENNAN: It was all what?
DR. WOLFE: It was protected as classified.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you been asked for it? Has there been a request made for all the raw data that forms the basis of your initial opinions?
DR. WOLFE: My understanding from communication with the Department of Justice is that all communication and work product is protected and cannot be disclosed.
MR. BRENNAN: So that raw data that's necessary for your evaluation and your testing — that wasn't provided in this case, was it, for the first trial?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: And videos of the demonstrations. You built like a potato cannon, right?
DR. WOLFE: I'm sorry, what?
MR. BRENNAN: Potato cannon.
DR. WOLFE: If that's how you want to characterize it. Sure.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you take videos when you were doing your demonstrations and tests?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You never turned over those videos, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, we're talking about trial one. As I mentioned, for trial two, we —
MR. BRENNAN: Trial one. I want you to focus on trial one.
DR. WOLFE: Okay. No, that was not produced. No.
MR. BRENNAN: You never turned over any of those videos, did you?
DR. WOLFE: Again, we were not able to.
MR. BRENNAN: And was there any failed testing the first time around?
DR. WOLFE: No.
MR. BRENNAN: In addition to videos, I'm sure you had other raw data, notes, photographs, right?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And so when you look at a report — for example, you saw Dr. Welcher's report and you had access now to his file and data.
DR. WOLFE: Correct. Correct.
MR. BRENNAN: You reviewed that, didn't you?
DR. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Because to be fair, you need to review not just the report. That's just someone's opinion. You need to review the raw data, don't you? To get an accurate understanding of an opinion, right?
DR. WOLFE: Which we have already provided in response to Dr. Welcher.
MR. BRENNAN: Without video and without the raw data, as an expert, there's no ability to really vet the reliability of your first experiments that led to your testimony in trial one, is there?
DR. WOLFE: I think you might be confused. Again, our role for this round—
MR. JACKSON: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: You should be allowed to answer.
MR. BRENNAN: I don't think I'm confused. I'm talking about trial one, right? You had a 12-page report. You provided no video, no raw data, no notes. Correct?
DR. WOLFE: Correct. But— For this trial, sir, we are being asked to respond to Dr. Welcher.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay.
DR. WOLFE: We have provided everything that he would need to evaluate the testing that we have done.
MR. BRENNAN: That's not what I'm asking. What if he wants to evaluate the testing you did the first time? Are you going to come into court? Do you hope to testify about the opinions you gave the first time about those four opinions?
DR. WOLFE: I don't know what the defense's plan is for us. My understanding is that it's to evaluate and respond to Dr. Welcher.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. With that, I need to see counsel.
JUDGE CANNONE: You're all set. And let's bring Dr. Rentschler in here, please. Thank you.
DR. WOLFE: Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: Okay. Follow me, sir.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give to the court in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right, Dr. Rentschler, this is going to be very quick. Go ahead, Mr. Brennan. We just need his name.
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, doctor.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Good afternoon.
MR. BRENNAN: Could you please state your name for the record and spell it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Dr. Andrew John Rentschler. A-N-D-R-E-W J-O-H-N R-E-N-T-S-C-H-L-E-R.
MR. BRENNAN: You've testified before in this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I have. Yes, sir. At a voir dire in a past trial. That's correct.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you have conversations and communications with the defense before your last testimony?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you use text messages to communicate?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe there was maybe one text message.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. How about phone calls?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There were maybe one or two phone calls, I believe.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Would it be fair to say there were six text messages for you?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yeah, I believe I sent one and then there were five sent to me.
MR. BRENNAN: And were there 23 phone calls?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, I don't believe so.
MR. BRENNAN: Have you looked at the records outlining the phone calls that supposedly you made to the defense?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I looked at the records from the defense, but then I looked at my own records, which indicate a different number. Only three phone calls, I believe.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. So the 23 phone calls that are summarized — you don't think you made those phone calls?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No. If you look at them, it's like 1 minute, 2 minute, 3 minute. And in that time period, according to my phone records, I have like a 21-minute phone call that encompasses most of that time.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. Did you discuss with the defense before your testimony anything about this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe so. No.
MR. BRENNAN: Wouldn't you say you don't believe so? Do you remember speaking to them about this case at all?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I remember speaking about my qualifications and my background, and I believe that's it.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever use any other medium to have conversations with the defense other than texts or emails or phone calls?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you ever communicate with them on Signal?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Why not?
DR. RENTSCHLER: There was no reason to.
MR. BRENNAN: As an expert, when you communicate with clients, there's no concern about having it in writing, is there? So when you're keeping a record, whether it's a phone call or a text message or an email, there's no concern when you're dealing with clients having a record of that, is there?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I don't believe that ARCCA has any specific policy for that. No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you keep track of your hours prior to your testimony?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I did, yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Before you testified, did you have conversations with people from the Department of Justice about this case?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Yes, I did.
MR. BRENNAN: Did they inform you about witness testimony?
DR. RENTSCHLER: They did inform me, yes, about testimony and situations and events that came forth in the trial that I was not aware of.
MR. BRENNAN: Who decided whether it was going to be an issue worthy of talking about before trial with the DOJ?
DR. RENTSCHLER: You mean? Well, that certainly would have been up to the DOJ. I mean, I would have had conversations with them. I don't believe that I asked or requested anything, but they were called to update us about what was going on.
MR. BRENNAN: Do you know why they were calling and raising certain issues with you?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I do not know. No, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And by calling and raising issues and telling you information, even if you weren't requesting it, it helped prepare you for your trial testimony, didn't it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: It would certainly help prepare me to understand what was going on during the trial. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you know there was a sequestration order — that there was supposed to be no discussion of testimony and issues that were occurring in the courtroom before — excuse me — before you testified?
JUDGE CANNONE: I'm going to allow it.
MR. BRENNAN: Were you aware of that, sir?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, I was not.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. After you testified — well, before you testified, did you get a chance to meet anybody from the defense?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Just when I came to court. I think for the voir dire is the first time I met anybody.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you spend time with the defendant and the defense after your testimony?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, after my testimony at trial on the 24th, yes, I was provided a ride back to the airport and I believe I was the last witness. So before my ride to the airport, they said, "There's a lunch next door. We need to get somebody else to take you to the airport. Come over, have lunch." I had lunch, stood in the corner, and then got a ride back to the airport.
MR. BRENNAN: You spent time with the defendant and her family.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Oh, they were certainly there.
MR. BRENNAN: Did you talk to them?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, they talked to me. As I said, I ate my lunch and then I actually went and stood in the corner, and then I believe some people came over and talked to me.
MR. BRENNAN: So you spent some time with them?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Certainly. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: Okay. And sir, I understand the report is not going to be ready until May 7th or after.
DR. RENTSCHLER: I believe currently that's the estimated deadline. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: And so in evaluating Dr. Welcher's materials, you want to look at the raw data, the conclusions, the findings, the PowerPoint, all the materials, right?
DR. RENTSCHLER: I would. Yes.
MR. BRENNAN: You'd like to review all the materials before coming up with an opinion. You can make a decision on what you think is appropriate to contest or maybe agree with, and then do your own test if necessary.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Correct. To be able to respond to what those opinions and allegations are. Yes, sir.
MR. BRENNAN: And it's taken you at least a month to fairly do that, hasn't it?
DR. RENTSCHLER: Well, I mean, that's basically what we've had — a month. I don't know if it's taken us a month; that's basically all we've had up to this point to do that.
MR. BRENNAN: And it's still not done?
DR. RENTSCHLER: No, not yet. That's correct, sir.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Is that it, Mr. Brennan?
MR. BRENNAN: Excellent. Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Can you get that report and everything completed before the 7th if I order you to do so?
DR. RENTSCHLER: If you order me to do so, I mean, I could certainly try and expand again.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. You're all set, sir.
DR. RENTSCHLER: Thank you.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Want to see counsel at sidebar for a moment. All right, that's it. Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: All rise for the court, please.